They worked hard...

Grummer

Grummer

Active Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
14,707
Reaction score
18


sore cock and vagina
 
ahhhhh is this really??? I saw the other day "The Duggar Family has 20 kids. I guess 2 twins and the rest kids are not twins.
 
Bottesini said:
Time travelers then?

Photography didn't come into being until the middle of the next century.
Click to expand...

That is what I thought so. The picture of their clothes were like in the late 1800 possibly close to the turn of the century 1900, not 1700. That was a lot of children and if the grown ups were married with wives and children that would add up how many children their parents raised.

I don't know. That is why I don't response to that. This picture have to have proof of evidence of what the statement saying in the picture. Someone must have doctor up with this. :dunno:
 
The picture probably isn't doctored up, who knows it could an orphanage, grand kids......

It's the "story" that's BS. Happens ALL the time, people post bologna stories on FB all he time. It's probably where he got it. The story screams bs. Triplets, naturally are extremely rare, fertility drugs have to be involved with 4 or more, maybe even three. There pretty much a natures law about an animal can only have as many nipples it has determining how many babies it can have at once. Not positive if you can have triplets without fertility drugs, but def not 4. They didn't have those then.

I just looked at the pic again and those are a lot of adults as well, grandparent, their kids, and their spouses and all their kids most likely.
 
DeafDucky said:
Apparently it is true--

Feodor Vassilyev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They put the Duggars to shame lol.
Click to expand...
No, it's not apparently true just because it's in Wikipedia. :lol:

Also, even the Wiki story states:

...Several published sources raised doubts as to the veracity of these claims. According to a 1933 article by Julia Bell[5] in Biometrika, a 1790 book of B. F. J. Hermann Statistische Schilderung von Rußland did provide the claims about Feodor Vassilyev's children but "with a caution". Bell also notes that the case was reported by The Lancet in an 1878 article about the study of twins.[6] The Lancet article states that the French Academy of Sciences attempted to verify the claims about Vassilyev's children and contacted "M. Khanikoff of the Imperial Academy of St Petersburg for advice as to the means they should pursue, but were told by him that all investigation was superfluous, that members of the family still lived in Moscow and that they had been the object of favours from the Government".[5][6] Bell concludes that Vassilyev's case "must be regarded as under suspicion".[5] Similarly, Marie Clay in a 1998 book notes: "Sadly, this evasion of proper investigation seems, in retrospect, to have dealt a terminal blow to our chances of ever establishing the true detail of this extraordinary case".[2]
Click to expand...

So, it can't be proven.
 
LOL I blame my poor brain that is addled by all the advil and/or benadryl (trying to reduce the swelling & pain...).

You are right- In Russia and the 1700s the record keeping was probably not the best in the world- or didn't exist especially for rural & poor folks.
 
Vanessa8 said:
ahhhhh is this really??? I saw the other day "The Duggar Family has 20 kids. I guess 2 twins and the rest kids are not twins.
Click to expand...

The medical care in the 1700's was nothing like it's today's . I really doubt that every babies lived to be as old as show in the photo. There was no antibiotic or shots for chicken pox etc in the 1700's .
 
ambrosia said:
The picture probably isn't doctored up, who knows it could an orphanage, grand kids......

It's the "story" that's BS. Happens ALL the time, people post bologna stories on FB all he time. It's probably where he got it. The story screams bs. Triplets, naturally are extremely rare, fertility drugs have to be involved with 4 or more, maybe even three. There pretty much a natures law about an animal can only have as many nipples it has determining how many babies it can have at once. Not positive if you can have triplets without fertility drugs, but def not 4. They didn't have those then.

I just looked at the pic again and those are a lot of adults as well, grandparent, their kids, and their spouses and all their kids most likely.
Click to expand...



As far we it could be a photo of a whole village taken for a historic event .
 
DeafDucky said:
LOL I blame my poor brain that is addled by all the advil and/or benadryl (trying to reduce the swelling & pain...).

You are right- In Russia and the 1700s the record keeping was probably not the best in the world- or didn't exist especially for rural & poor folks.
Click to expand...

My dad was born in Russia around 1892 give or take a few years. No one in dad family had a birth record. Dad told us the way they kept birth records was by an event that happen on a day a baby was born , it could had been the day the cow broke it leg or the day they had soup with meat in it. We're Jewish so we don't have the headstone engraved until a year has pass then we go back to see it. When we saw dad headstone we saw that his DOB was wrong and was going have it fixed, then we realize as fare as we knew it could be right and left it alone. Dad picked out his own DOB and he would made himself older or younger when looking for work. He made himself older to join the army in WW 1 .
 
People, people--as Botts has already pointed out, even if the story is true, that is NOT a photo of the family.

Think--there was no photography in the 1700's--not in Russia, not in the USA, not in Europe--NONE! Think! Has anyone here ever seen a photograph of George Washington or any of the Founding Fathers of the USA?

This picture was taken at least 100 years after all those children would have been born.

So, even if the story is true, THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF THAT FAMILY!

:rofl:
 
whatdidyousay! said:
As far we it could be a photo of a whole village taken for a historic event .
Click to expand...
Yes, or a multi-generation picture of an extended family reunion. Anyway, it wasn't taken during the time that the Russian family was supposedly propagating.
 
Reba said:
People, people--as Botts has already pointed out, even if the story is true, that is NOT a photo of the family.

Think--there was no photography in the 1700's--not in Russia, not in the USA, not in Europe--NONE! Think! Has anyone here ever seen a photograph of George Washington or any of the Founding Fathers of the USA?

This picture was taken at least 100 years after all those children would have been born.

So, even if the story is true, THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF THAT FAMILY!

:rofl:
Click to expand...

Weren't cameras invented in the 1820's?
 
Back
Top